Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/League of Legends/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2021 [1].

League of Legends

[edit]
Nominator(s): — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With millions of daily players, League of Legends is one of the world's biggest games. As I think is often the case, I began editing primarily to fix two articles; one of those was League, and it’s come a long way since then. The game can be complicated, but my hope is that it is digestible for readers and editors who have never played it. The developer, Riot Games, has been busy, releasing two spin-offs since 2019 (with a third, a single-player RPG, scheduled for this year). I want the article to be the best that it can be for anyone wondering: what the f$%k is League of Legends? Although popular, the game also has a famously negative player base, and Riot has attempted to tackle that (with mixed results). This is my first FA nomination, so I have a few people to thank for their advice, encouragement, and helping me to become a (semi-)competent editor. Several of them are not FA reviewers, but I want to thank them here anyway.

Lee Vilenski, for never being frustrated with questions; Eddie891, for his relentless kindness; ferret, for being a bit of a mentor; PMC, for keeping me up when I really should have been asleep; Le Panini for his general can-do attitude; Izno, for fixing that blasted table; SandyGeorgia, for telling me not to be afraid of FAC; Blablubbs, for keeping me hydrated; and finally PresN, for reference assistance.

Also thank you to everyone who participated in the Peer Review. In order: Alexandra, Aza24, David Fuchs, and Spicy. Thanks for reading it (especially if you'd never played). I'm looking forward to the feedback.
—ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - source review and spot checks

[edit]

Greetings ImaginesTigers and welcome. That sounds interesting. If time permits I shall review it myself. I would like to flag up that as a first-time FAC nominator this article will require a spot check of its citations as well as the usual source review. This is usual, and in nominations after your first successful one this is likely to be less rigorous, or taken on faith. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Gog! I've seen that on a few other first-time noms while researching, so thankfully not a total shock; still a little scary, though. Let's see if I've been up to the task! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Hi there! Is there something in particular you're looking for wrt this nomination? I'd be happy to try and call in some favours to expedite the process, if so. If you're just looking for more general feedback, I will just wait :) Sorry to bother you! (A lot of the feedback has been moved to the Talk page, if you're wondering why it’s so short!) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks from eddie

[edit]
Appreciate it, Eddie! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted comments from Eddie moved to talk page per his request there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Le Panini

[edit]

I was present at the peer review, but only extensively looked into the Reception section. I'm gonna look and give suggestions for the entire article this time around. Waiting for comments can be a pain, so I'll do this early on to keep you busy for... maybe a day. Le Panini [🥪] 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A day? You monster—I'm a volunteer! (Just kidding; lookin' forward to it, Panini) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not in that since. And P.S., getting my username changed to simply "Panini". Le Panini [🥪] 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Drop the "the". Just Panini. It’s cleaner."
Lead
  • "Since its release on October 27, 2009..." Adding the full release date here is redundant, as its already stated in the infobox. This could be changed to "Since its release on October 27, 2009, the game has been..."
MoS/VG says release date should be included in the lead; I think that one of the reasons it’s good to have it there is, if you Google "When was League of Legends released?", it pulls from the lead for a concise answer, but I don't believe Google can pull from info-boxes.
I've looked into it, and searching up when Darius Gaiden came out, it pulls from the infobox. Namcokid47 removed this from PMTOK due to it being unnecessary, so I assume its regular practice.
If it’s regular practice, MOS/VG needs to be updated :p I'll abridge it to "October 2009" for now. That's what Batman: Arkham City and (more recently) BioShock 2: Minerva's Den both do. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. It looks like all video game article do this. Le Panini [🥪] 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Experience points is mentioned multiple times in the article. This can be abbreviated using (XP) at its first occurrence.
Thanks! Fixed.
  • The third paragraph is about esports, and the fourth is about reception. I think moving the esports paragraph to the end would make more sense.
Agreed. Thanks!
  • "A massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on League is in development." League of Legends is abbreviated to League here, but this is done no where else in the article. To me, this is off-putting.
You're right; fixed!
Gameplay
  • The simplified map's caption goes into a lot of detail. Some of the info here (such as "The fountains, where players appear at a game's beginning," is explained in the text, and doesn't really need to be specified. This can help shorten the caption a bit.
Fixed!
  • Ultra Rapid Fire is simplified with (URF), but is only used one other time. The other use can be changed to "In the mode,"
Good catch. Done.
  • "Players in a lane "farm"—killing minions to accumulate gold and XP—and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same." Remove the "and" here
Development
  • "...the publishers were confused by the game's free-to-play business model and lack of a single-player model." "Model" is repeated twice here.
Fixed!
  • I think having the list of the original seventeen champions falls under the lines of WP:GAMECRUFT. It would be better if this specified there were seventeen, but not listing them out.
Yeaaaaah. WP:VG told me that the initial roster was pretty vital, but I'm inclined to agree tbh. Readers can look at the citations!
  • "making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018 behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." According to the Wikipedia list linked, it's also behind Arena of Valor.
The source I used doesn't mention AoV. Weirdly, My source is also used on the other page for LoL and Fortnite, but AoV comes from somewhere unless. I've had a look and I can't find much to say that the citation they use for AoV (Sensor Tower) is reliable or reputable. What do you think?
Simplest answer, find a source for it. Another solution, you can easily remove the "behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." part if you can't find any sources, and just change the source to "As of August 2018, the game had an active user base of over 111 million players and an annual revenue of US$1.4 billion, making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018."
I did this earlier, yeah. Seemed easier.
  • "..and contained no political themes." What does this mean? I don't think it's worth mentioning.
It’s basically an elaboration of what came before—there were no political/social themes in the story before. But I agree--the good vs evil bit does the job.
Miscellaneous
  • I see a lot of em dashes in this article. Is there something these do that a comma can't? Some could be worked out of the article for better reading purposes.
Can you point to any places where they're disruptive? I find that they distinguish parentheses much more neatly than commas do, and I think this might just be a case of style. If others say that the dashes are hurting readability, I'll purge 'em ^_^
But looking back, you used em dashes to respond back to me, so I'm assuming its just how you write. Unless if others have issues with it, I won't get nitpicky.
I love an em dash. I use them constantly in essays, too, but I don't think I ever mis-use them or damage clarity with them. We'll see what others say and circle back to this one.
Thanks for all the feedback so far, Panini. Means a lot. I really like getting feedback for some reason... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Left some responses and other things I found. Le Panini [🥪] 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other people seem to be dealing with grammar and sources, so I'll lend my support on this one. Good work! Le Panini [🥪] 12:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Hi Tigers! Glad to see you moving into FA. This is my first time commenting at FAC, so it's possible I'm being too picky for what's expected. I also don't necessarily expect you to make changes every time I point something out, I'm just noting what stands out to me as a reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh thanks PMC! I'm sure your suggestions are great. Let's dive in!
Hatted content moved to talk page

I will probably get into some more for the rest of the article later, but that's it for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, PMC. Thanks for doing this. Really great suggestions—I've left a few questions for you above. Getting feedback from people who haven't played is so great. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the changes, I'll probably get around to commenting on the rest of the article within the next couple days or so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second verse, same as the first
[edit]

You should know that these comments are written without reviewing the rest of the FAC and may be redundant to them; feel free to ignore any that are addressed elsewhere or just mark them as such.

Post-release
  • to ensure no strategy dominated - probably being picky, but "no one strategy" maybe?
  • Done!
  • Maybe split the paragraph? I realize it would make two stubby paragraphs rather than one nice chunky sized one but currently you're discussing two topics, patches and employees, in one.
  • This definitely looks ugly, but done!
Revenue model
  • an achievement system to tally champion-specific milestones, purchasable with Riot Points - I don't understand this. What are players buying here?
  • I don't really know what to do with this one... I've added a wiki-link to Achievement (video games); does that help? It really is just a system that tracks champion-specific milestones. How many times you've killed an enemy with X ability, that sort of thing. I've just had a look and I can't reliably source any examples
  • Okay, now I understand that the system as a whole costs you points to unlock but I still don't think the sentence communicates that very clearly (at first I read it like you paid for each individual achievement). I think achievement systems are common enough that you could get away with just wikilinking it and not explaining it in detail, so trimming it down to something like: "an achievement system that could be activated with Riot Points" might be better for clarity.
  • Done!
  • paid to play the game - I assume this means "paid for cosmetics etc", but the wording makes that unclear.
  • Fixed!
  • client-based game standard - what is a client-based game? this is the first instance of that phrase in the article and it feels jargony. At the very least it ought to be a bluelink.
  • This was a suggestion from the source review, but Eddie had told me to change it back and I said nah it’s fine and left it, so I've put it back to "industry standard"
  • Are there any sources that dispute or update Weidemann's 2014 analysis?
  • Nope!
  • Well, that blows :P
  • I would swap the order of the last two sentences so you go from "large player base" -> "111 million players" -> "3 billion hours".
  • Good catch.
Plot
  • As this section goes into post-release revamp of the lore and talks about hiring writers etc, maybe it could be merged with the Post-release section above to create one larger section? It just seems odd to have two separate-but-related subsections.
  • I actually think this is necessary. Some people will come to this article looking for a section about the plot, and anchoring it to "Post-release" just doesn't feel right to me. The section was a compromise over a previously existing aspect of the article—a huge heading called "Setting" that was poorly sourced and unsustainable. If it’s okay with you, I will not do this one
  • Yeah fair enough
Reception
  • Ryan Scott was critical of the grind required for non-paying players to unlock key gameplay elements - maybe this would be undue, but this isn't mentioned at all in the monetization or gameplay sections. Are key gameplay elements still locked behind grinding and paywalls for new players? I was under the impression that there's no pay-to-win and the only paid content is aesthetic in nature.
  • This was only a thing at release and doesn't exist anymore
  • Is it possible to make that clearer, even if you have to footnote it? Otherwise it gives the impression that it's still in the game, which is confusing. Same with the mention of it in the reassessment section.
  • Done in both places
  • with key features missing - do we know what ones?
  • Yeah, the next two sentences mention that there was a promised in-game store that wasn't available; GameStar refused to carry out their review because of it
  • Is that it though? An in-game store doesn't strike me as a "key" launch feature; I wouldn't call a game underdeveloped for not having it.
  • In 2009, it was a pretty big feature. The fact that the game went free-to-play absolutely sunk Heroes of Newerth. Riot mentioned skins and customisation in a big press release, and it really was hyped by the press and on forums. People were hugely disappointed that it wasn't there.
  • But that's not "key features" plural, that's one promised feature that they biffed. The current wording sounds like they pulled a No Man's Sky, but what you're saying here makes it sound much different.
  • I have deleted "with key features missing"
Reassessment
  • with IGN's explaining - I don't think this needs the 's
  • Oop's. Fixed!
  • GameSpot from 6 to 9 - is there a typo in your dates for the sources for this? Both say Oct 2013 but one is labelled a launch review, which would be a bit late by then. Also might be worth specifically noting the increases came after several years (vs weeks or months)
  • The GameSpot thing is a database error. They migrated their database, but it was originally published in October or November 2009. This is well-documented as a problem with GameSpot's reviews from that period; you can check the WP:VG archives. I can't tell exactly when it came out, so I don't want to specify a year because I just don't know, unfortunately. Bad issue, I know, but GameSpot are a high-quality, reliable source otherwise
  • Oh, that's fucky. Okay, no problem.
  • Is it possible to find a citation for any particular champion that's a focus of the gender-based design criticism? Commons has a lot of League cosplay pics (Commons:Category:Cosplay_of_League_of_Legends), and I wonder if we could include one as an example of the so-called horny Clash-esque designs. I know it sounds like I'm being horny on main here trying to get cosplay pics into the article but I think it's a relevant illustration of a major design critique (that is, how many of the female designs in LoL conform to a "skinny hot girl in tight or revealing clothes" archetype).
  • I've added one!
  • Again the unlock rate is mentioned, but is never discussed previously. Can we mention it earlier, maybe in gameplay?
  • It doesn't exist anymore, and I've tried to keep the gameplay section free from anything that is likely to change. It’s only the core gameplay: very few names of buffs, monsters, things that Riot can (and does) change regularly. The unlock rate is also not gameplay; champions are acquired by playing and completing "missions", but this is a recent change, and I can't source it :( Riot have changed the way champions are unlocked many, many times
  • Right, I was under the impression it was still in the game, which is why I asked. See my comment about the earlier mention of it though.
  • Working on this! Let me know what you think.
  • Now that the other thing has been footnoted (and clarified that it refers to a separate annoying system of unlocks) I think this can be left alone.
Player culture
  • I recognize that this is probably a sourcing issue, but you have one sentence about how nasty the player base is, and then immediately pivot to Riot claiming it's just a small portion having a bad day. To me, this sounds like total corporate horseshit, and I'm curious to see if there are any reliable sources that dispute Riot's rather charitable perspective. I'm also curious if there's any that discuss the psychology of why people are such dicks about LoL, and maybe if it's actually valid that they are worse in LoL compared to other esports games like Starcraft or Overwatch. (I have zero intention of opposing if this isn't available, I just want to know if it is)
  • I've fixed the sentence you're having problems with, because of very similar feedback from Eddie. I wish there was more to dispute or support Riot's statements, but - for what it’s worth - I think I agree with it. Players do just have bad days and act out, and in team-based games it is really common. It happens in Overwatch, too (in my experience), but I've never played StarCraft. I'll add that these problems don't exist in Riot's non-team games (TFT is played by one player alone). I think it’s just a bigger issue in LoL because of the game's size
  • Okay, fair enough!
In esports
  • This is a good top-level summary for a section that has a spinout article.
  • have outperformed those of physical sports - can you clarify if this means at specific events, over a specific period of time, or something else? Or maybe give an example or comparison? As written it verges on claiming that LoL esports viewership exceeds all physical sports worldwide, which I'm going to assume is not the case.
  • Done! Similar feedback from Eddie, too.
  • Riot sells sponsorships and streaming rights to its leagues is redundant to The company sells streaming rights to the game, no?
  • Yep! It’s even the same reference. I think I've just moved things around and not deleted the worse bit (the part without the example). Fixed.
Spin-offs
  • Fixed!
  • League of Legends: Wild Rift is an version of the game - typo, and may want to clarify that it's upcoming or still in beta
  • My plan was not to mention it at all because I might forget to update it. The sources will be much stronger once the game's officially released. Thoughts?
  • I think it's probably better to mention that it's not out yet, but I wouldn't oppose based on that alone, and I'm not going to press it.
  • game was a single-player - should probably be "will be" since it's unreleased
  • I think I disagree here. The third and final game to be announced was the RPG, and the game will be a single-player, but the language that currently exists seems right to me
  • Yeah I see what you mean.
  • The third and final contradicts the Dec 2020 announcement of the MMORPG; maybe reword to "the third game announced at the anniversary" or something similar?
  • Yeah, that's what it should have said (Eddie said the same!), fixed :D
In other media
  • Could this section be folded into Spin-offs to reduce header clutter? You could have "Spin-offs and other media" as your top-level, then Games, Music, Comics, Animated series as your secondary headers. Not a hill I'd die on.
  • This is a great idea—let's die on this hill together. Done!
  • Yeah! Done, second paragraph (I don't want to de-link heavy metal)
  • Is it plausible to get the K/D/A promo image from that article in here, since the article discusses the fact that the band is promotional for the virtual cosmetics?
  • This was initially in, but was removed at peer review because it failed as free use
  • Ah, c'est la vie.
  • Is there any update for the Comics section? Did the Marvel collab announced in 2018 actually go through?
  • It did, and the article originally included details, but I had to delete them because Dot Esports was considered not high quality enough in the source review :/ I can't find replacements
  • This is a primary source, but it at least confirms that the comics did come out; I think it's reasonable to use it to verify that.
  • Unfortunately, Eddie has been rejecting anything that came out even 2 days prior to something coming out, and this was pre-release :/
  • Ahh, nice!

Okay, that's as much nitpicking as I have for now. I know it looks like a lot combined with my original comments, but I'm not here to fail you, and I am willing to be flexible on the majority of it. An article of this scope is a monumental undertaking, and you're dealing with a lot of commentary and a lot of sourcing and research, so take your time and don't worry about a speedy response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback was great! I have left some comments (things I didn't change/need further advice on), but I don't think they were among the most pressing ones. Some great feedback—thank you! :D — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the responses, and I will now change to support :) Excellent work on this overall, Tigers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot PMC. You've left a couple other comments but I'm going to sleep now & deal with them tomorrow :] I really appreciate you taking the time, and all the feedback you gave. The article is much better for it — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for the coords that the two minor outstanding comments have been dealt with, and I am reaffirming my support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ovinus

[edit]

And I thought you'd take a break after four Million Awards...! I'll be reviewing the article soon, hopefully before Tuesday. For the record, I have never played nor seen the game (beyond a few short clips whose complexity confused me to no end). Ovinus (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ovinus! Like I just said to PMC, feedback from non-players is so crucial for this sort of game. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, and I'm looking forward to it. As for a break? The grind can never stop. There are articles that need fixin' :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha, I admire your vitality! Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved comments moved to talk page.)

That's basically it from me! A great article. As Gog the Mild noted I think it would have benefited from a copyedit; such edits comprise basically 90% of my notes here, but as a reviewer I don't think I'm supposed to touch the article. Peace, Ovinus (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus I just want to offer a very sincere apology along with an even more sincere thank you. It would have been really easy—and completely fair—for you to oppose on the grounds of it requiring a copy edit. Jumping straight from PR to FAC without giving it a thorough read-through (and second pair of eyes) was, in hindsight, a huge mistake—one that, if I do any more FANs, won't be repeated. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this; it was more generous than I deserved. Regarding not touching the article, I don't mind that you didn't make the changes yourself—I learned things I wouldn't have learned just by reviewing the changes—but I have been copy-editing FARs, so I hope that isn't true and I don't get in trouble. Thanks again, Ovinus. Drop me a message when your article is ready (whether at PR or FAC). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose?? The article is great and written very well—I just had a few line edits. Plus I don't have a particularly good command of English and apparently don't like commas. You'll notice I incorrectly used "comprise" a few hours ago, heh! Sorry if I sounded harsh or was intimidating. I'll take a look over your replies tonight or tomorrow morning. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:( Thanks, Ovinus. Looking forward to your replies. Sorry again about all the work. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed most of the things and the comments that remain are those left to address (or just chatter/responses that don't need action). I'll probably re-read the article once in a week or two. I'd like to express my gratitude that you're working on such an important article in terms of viewership. While I admire those make featured content on comparatively obscure topics, I particularly admire those who bring forth highly visible articles. Maybe that's just an excuse to be more picky, knowing how many eyes will see your work, I dunno. But thank you. Ovinus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus: Sorry about the delay; another editor brought some glaring issues with Player culture to my attention so I was fixing them urgently. All done now. The kind words are appreciated; it’s nice that you noticed. I'm going to keep it up, but I will be moving off the video game subject for a while. I just picked League as a good first FAC because I know the subject well. Thanks again, and looking forward to anything else you can add. Given that you are mostly done, it might be a good time for me to perform the Gog Summoning Ritual? Just waiting on Eddie finishing up the spot checks now, so I think the article should be pretty stable (pending any new reviewers). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ritual requires a blood sacrifice ImaginesTigers. That or cake. Either works. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a knife to hand. A cake, I do not. The choice, made; my fate, sealed. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
Hahaha, I can't tell if that's some literary allusion. On a walk today I thought of something: does LoL spread players among games by language/skill level? Or is it completely random? I don't know if that's sourceable, or even worthy of inclusion. The other thing was whether the "Game modes" section header is needed. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: Sorry; I didn't see this until everything was moved onto Talk. So first answer is yes/no. Language specifically, no; the client separates players by regions so that network delay doesn't cause problems. Europe has one server; North America another, and so on. Originally there was a fair amount of server info in the article but I had to remove the vast majority of it. Stuff from the early days of League's servers just isn't easy to find now, unfortunately. RE: skill level, yeah. It’s mentioned in the first paragraph of Summoner's Rift (there is no ranked queue for ARAM). Players are matched with others within the general vicinity of their rank (it’s well-known among players that game quality goes down late at night, for example, and some players have used that to climb quicker). Not really sourceable, though. RE: headers, good point! I've gone ahead and done that. I do like the "scope" that that heading provided, keeping things contained, but I think it’s still implicit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while we're on the topic, there is another area I'm aware of that's absent. Riot Games isn't the only publisher of League of Legends. A company called Garena oversees the game for the South-East Asia region. It’s a really bizarre situation, and one Riot clearly regrets. Unfortunately, impossible to source. I've spent hours and hours looking in total, and I haven't been the only one. Another WP:VG editor on the Discord joined in the search, and there was just nothing that would pass the HQ RS requirement. The only place it’s mentioned in the article is the infobox, because I can't even find information about when that happened (it was very early in League's lifetime). Beyond this FAC, I will continue to look. I have a source which mentions a falling out Riot had with a company to oversee the European servers. I know the company is called Goa, a video game-focused subsidiary of Orange, but the HQRS I have that mentions it... doesn't even name the company. I could probably still find a way to mention it in Post-release, though, but doing it without being able to mention the company is weird. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I guess Riot has done a good job concealing it. Ovinus (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: I went through the article again. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see some your responses to my comments that aren't reflected in the article. For example, "random effects" is still there, and "Kotaku's reviewer, Brian Crecente," is still there. "Downloadable content" wasn't put back in as you said. Have you just not gotten to it, or maybe it's VisualEditor related? Let me know; while I could note what I find, I'd rather not repeat myself. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also noticed that "The lead designer of social systems, Jeffrey Lin" is repeated twice in the Player culture section. I think before supporting I'll have to go through the article again and make sure that it's stable. Ovinus (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: From what I can tell the comments I made most recently (after collapsing my resolved comments) were the only ones not actioned on. They are above. Maybe you didn't press save? Not sure about the Jeffrey Lin thing though, so I shall go through once more after we figure this out. Ovinus (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed did not press save. Fixed the ones you've mentioned above. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, supporting on prose, neutrality and on comprehensiveness. I can't think of any missing salient info that I haven't brought up and confirmed to be un-sourceable. Amazing job!! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Ovinus :) If you notice anything else, don't be afraid about hitting me up—on the Talk, or on my Talk, or on Discord. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for picking this up, Gog! — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Resolved issues moved to talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2
[edit]
  • Lead: "The game is available for Microsoft Windows and macOS." I can't seem to find this in the main article.
  • I can't find a great place for it. There isn't enough high quality sourcing to sustain a "release" subheading unfortunately, and development just doesn't feel right. One source is enough to cover both, so I've added it to the infobox.
The lead is a summary of the main article. If its not in the main article, it can't go in the lead. Or the infobox.
I guess I can put it in post-release.
That would seem sensible.
  • "with each team occupying and defending their own half of the map". Maybe something like 'with each team defending their own half of the map and attempting to attack their opponents'. Or have I got that wrong? No, I see it at the end of the paragraph. Any reason why these two, similar aspects are separated by a lot of detail on gameplay?
  • I don't know what you mean here. The context of them battling at the end involves minions; I can't make this change without restructuring a lot. It took so long to write this because of how interconnected all the systems are -- moving the sentence I think you mean would confuse the reader instantly (if you mean Players in a lane kill minions to accumulate gold and XP ("farming") and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same.
OK. It's not how I would phrase it, but it's your call, not mine.
  • Suggest that all uses of " level up" are replaced by 'gain levels'.
  • A control+f returned one result, so that one was easy!
  • "one of the enemy team's inhibitors are destroyed". "are" → 'is'.
  • Thank you. Fixed!
  • "These monsters requires multiple players to defeat and grant special abilities to its slayers' team." "its" → 'their'.
  • And "requires" -> "require", too. Whoops! This was a suggestion from Ovinus :p
  • "players must be vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities". I can't quite work this out. And so far as I can, I don't see why it especially applies to ARAM.
  • The map is very narrow, so abilities are (comparatively) harder to avoid. In Summoner's Rift, the map is very large, and you have a lot more freedom to move around.
So maybe 'players need to be more vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities than in Summoner's Rift'?
BOLD SO YOU CAN FIND NEW COMMENTS EASIER. I don't know. Eddie has been pretty strict about me saying things that aren't directly corroborated by the source so far. Honestly, I'm having some difficulty with feedback (generally, not you in particular—please don't misunderstand!) like this because Eddie has been really strict, but a lot of the feedback is asking for clarifications that I'd be happy to do but aren't within the source. The source says: The close-quarters nature of [ARAM's] map requires players to move efficiently and with quick reflexes so as to avoid enemy abilities. It doesn't mention SR at all.
Eddie is very strict like that. They should do more source reviews. Hint. OK. Whenever a reviewer asks for something which can't be collaborated they should immediately back off. This may, of course, lead to a different discussion. Eg around "just because you can source it, doesn't mean it has to be in the article".
I can live with what is there as a reasonable paraphrase of the source.
  • "Jew was intimately familiar with DotA". Optional: a different word to "intimately"?
  • Let's go with "very"
  • "to ensure no strategies dominated". Not certain, but possibly that should be 'strategy'?
  • It isn't more accurate, no, but it will throw readers who haven't played the game off less for sure, so I'll make this change.
  • "Larger changes often occur at the end of each competitive season." Maybe 'Larger changes often occur at the end of each competitive season, which lasts a year.'?
  • Not supported by the source. I remember your frustration with this earlier, so I've just removed it.
Your call, but it seems important, so if all that can be supported is what was there before, feel free to put it back in. I will have to live with my frustration.
BOLDING SO YOU CAN SEE THIS. I can put it back. I understand that it’s frustratingly unclear on what that means...
As I said, your call. I think that we can both see pros and cons, and it is "your" article, so you get to decide.
  • "writing character biographies of a few paragraphs in length". Does "in length" add anything?
  • "League of Legends received generally favorable reviews", When? Perhaps 'On initial release League of Legends received generally favorable reviews'?
  • I've just looked through other video game FAs, and I can't see any that do this (1, 2, 3, 4). This wasn't me cherry-picking; I just picked several out of Featured articles#Video games. It isn't spelled out in the Manual of Style, but the first thing under Reception is always the reception at the game's release (or slightly after). I've looked at movies, too, and I always can't find any precedent (1, 2). If you insist, I will implement with light grumbles
I really don't care what other articles say. And this is by no means a deal breaker. But the immediately prior paragraph starts "In September 2014, Riot Games rebooted the game's fictional setting ..." I honestly thought that the "generally favorable reviews" referred to this reboot until quite some way into the section. I don't see why it is an issue to you, but if it is, leave it; I have seen worse tripwires in FAs.
Added it :)
  • "was available from purchase from retailers" "from" → 'for'.
  • Oops!
  • "even for those who purchased the retail version". What is a "retail version"? I thought that it was free to play.
  • It was a limited edition that I can find nothing about other than this review, and the League of Legends wikia :p
  • "problematic bugs". Delete "problematic", what other sort is there? OK. I see your comment above. What does the source actually say?
  • The source says: LoL has some bugs, however, and not the type to induce lulz. I ran into a number of sound looping problems during the game – nothing that would cause crashes, but really irritating to say the least. I also ran into some occasions where attacks would simply… stop. For no reason evident. Bizarre, and frustrating. The game managed to eschew any major crashes though, so for the most part, I was able to play games to completion. I do stand by problematic here; he even references that bugs can be funny ("induce lulz"), but that they weren't game-breaking. I think "problematic" is a good word for that. That said, I've changed it to "frustrating" :)
Bleh! OK.
  • "The expansion of the champion roster". When did this happen.
  • Constantly! I've updated Post-release with some info about that. An accidental omission!
  • "the game's recommendations "might as well be required items" " This makes no sense to me.
  • I think I fixed it!

It looks to be in much.. better shape than when I first went through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know who to thank for that (hint: it’s only 20% me). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are nearly there. A couple of responses above, and note my three comments in green in my first review. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Ah, sorry, I made the edits for those yesterday but replying slipped my mind because they were separate. Thanks for all your hard work on bringing the article up to scratch. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Supporting. You have seemed a cheerful and responsive nominator, for which thank you. I hope that the experience hasn't been too harrowing for you, you certainly seem to have had a lot thrown at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, but you will almost certainly be told that it won't be promoted until it has been at FAC for longer. If you want to nominate a second FAC you can ask my permission. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I want to start proper work on Dracula but feel like I can't really get stuck in until this is over, one way or another; I find it hard to juggle multiple things. I understand that the process has to be lengthy, but it has killed my momentum. I'll just wait for more reviews. In trying to be responsive I've burned myself out a bit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Gog. Sorry to bother you again. I'm wondering if you could give me any advice on what might still be needed? It’s hanging over me like the sword of Damocles. I reached out to another reviewer for further feedback (David), but if there's anything you can tell me the reviews are still missing, I'd really like to get it dealt with. University has started up again for me and I'm worried about missing reviews when I plunge headlong into writing my dissertation. Hope you're well! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks sound to me - which is not a guarantee. Two coordinators, including me, have recused to review this, so the decision is down to Ian Rose. I suspect that they are waiting to see if any further reviewers wish to step in with comments. We don't like to rush nominations through without giving adequate time for the community to comment, and some reviewers like to allow the early dust to settle before reading an article. It has been up for three weeks today, so they will possibly be looking it over in the next few days. What you need to do is that most difficult of things - nothing. I promise that this won't be archived just because you are busy and miss a review or ping. So get into that dissertation and consider this a character building experience. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

[edit]

Hi there, Ealdgyth! So this is what a source review is. I've been really carefully curating the sources on this page for a long time, so I have reviewed your cheat sheet, and I am ready to explain. Let's take them one by one.

Firstly, InvenGlobal. I've purged both instances: the first was supporting a statement already confirmed by a stronger source (PC Gamer), and was added by someone directly following a big announcement (as happens with big franchises like this), so sorry about that. The second was citing Julia Lee as an executive producer. This was my first big project as a new editor... I purged most of the info-box when I started, but had left in Lee's interview because of the interview exception. Although it might be permissible to say who she is, I see now that she's an executive producer and, per WP:VG's Infobox doc, executive producers shouldn't be listed in info-boxes. Struck.

SuperDataResearch is owned by Neilsen. They are frequently reproduced by major, reliable gaming outlets, including Polygon, Kotaku, and IGN, and by non-video games outlets, like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Dot Esports are weird! Surprisingly niche, but very well-established in that niche. To just name a few to give you a sample of their pedigree, they are regularly quoted by Reuters (1, 2), Wired, Polygon, and PC Gamer. A former writer for ESPN, Jacob Wolf, made an appearance in The Washington Post for moving from ESPN to Dot Esports. You can even see some of his writing on League for ESPN in the Gameplay section of my nomination :)

Rift Herald. This might be a controversial one, but I hope not? In the early stages of this article, I purged every instance of them I could find. I've softened a bit since then, permitting two references. I'll explain: Rift Herald is a publication of Polygon, and its staff members—including the writer of the article cited to RH, is an employee of Polygon, with a Polygon email address. If you scroll to the bottom of their home-page, their Ethics Statement is Polygon's own. I think their use in the article is incredibly sparing; it’s providing a direct example of what was mentioned before—that Riot Games' behavioural team focuses on rewarding good behaviour, rather than punishing bad (citing a major system which does just that).

The YouTube link... Total disclosure, I was super new when I added that (as opposed to now, when I'm just a little new); it was supporting a music video's view count, but that was a bit pointless without context. I've replaced it with a reliable source and added some more context to convey more info to non-gamers.

And finally, despite its horrendously tacky name, that giant: GamesIndustry.biz. How reputable is it? Well, it’s owned by the same company as Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, USgamer, all very reliable sources for video games. Their reporting been reproduced by those outlets, but let's assume there's a COI there, and ignore them. What's left? There's NME, Engadget, Gematsu, Kotaku, IGN, The Verge, GameSpot, Ars Technica, GamesRadar. Non-gaming press includes the newspapers WS County Times, AS.com (Diario AS), and The Washington Post (1,2).

Thanks for the cheat sheet! I hope it meant this wasn't as painful as it might have been. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say "yes, I've seen this". today was ... bouncy and we're getting up early again tomorrow so i don't have time to actually reply until the morning when we get on the road and hopefully i'll be able to set the laptop up and work. today was too bouncy. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I drove a lot today, and I feel utterly depleted... Looking forward to when you get back to it, but there's no rush—you arrived way quicker than I anticipated! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded by Dot.esports. The others work fine, but I'm not seeing how dotesports is meeting the high quality bar here. It might barely pass the plain WP:RS standard, but we are looking for higher. And it's used a LOT in the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thanks Ealdgyth! If you look at the peer review I did, you can see right at the beginning that I knew Dot Esports was going to be a problem. I was able to replace the vast, vast majority of them, but what was left in felt hard to remove... That said, there isn't much I can do about it, if they need to be struck. I'll try again to find replacements, but chances are that I'm going to be unsuccessful. League's modern state isn't really covered by the mainstream press. Worried about comprehensiveness. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so if you look at the second paragraph of "Player culture", I really can't back up that Riot's anti-toxicity measures have been criticised at all without Dot Esports. That isn't a problem of comprehension, but due weight. First FAN, so any advice would be appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, minus 2. One is only using them to cite that some sources mention that the game will be released on Switch, and others don't—Riot has said nothing either way, so they're only in the footnote as an example of a publication mentioning the Switch. The other one explains, in a little more detail, why Riot got an Emmy for the 2018 League of Legends World Championship (an AR, CGI dragon). I can remove both of these too, but they're the ones I think would be really useful to keep... Let me know what you want. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ealdgyth. All but one references to Dot Esports have been purged. Just hoping your thought on Fn 116's attached note (which is where the last remaining instance is). Thanks for all your help ^_^ — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All dealt with - unwatching now! Ealdgyth (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image/Content review by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

images
  • Done! They use multiple different logos for different things, so I've gone with "Variant of logo from 2019"
  • Ty
  • Name updated! Thanks.
  • Ty

All in all, just need a caption for the original image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done :] Thanks, Lee.
Lede
  • The abbreviation is actually used nowhere in the article, and was a remnant from a previous iteration -- I've just removed it. Sources refer to them as either but, honestly, it’s never going to be confused. Had a look at previous VG FA's and even games with much longer names don't always have abbreviated forms. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • I don't think I agree with this one. I'll wait and see if any other reviewers flag it up before changing it. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • Done! Good point.
Prose
  • I've been taught to use quotations to indicate informal language, which top-down is, but I've dropped 'em! — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • Nah; it isn't a quote. It’s just not formal English, so was being denoted with "these". — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • Good point. Fixed!
  • MOS says: Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, so I've jiggled the sentence around to use the figure. Thanks!
  • Free-to-play had already been linked, so makes sense to cut this one.
Additional comments
  • Fixed!
  • One ref error: VanOrd, Kevin (October 17, 2013). "League of Legends – Retail Launch Review". GameSpot. Archived from the original on May 22, 2016. Retrieved January 2, 2021. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "GameSpot" defined multiple times with different content. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I think. I'm not seeing the ref error, so please let me know if I fixed it :] — ImaginesTigers (talk)

In addition, as you seem to need an image review, I can take a look at these too. If you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Lee! For this, and for the original GA :p — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only a couple minor points, but supporting unless someone else pops up with something. I'd forgotten I'd done the original GAN review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Hi Lee Vilenski, at the risk of being picky, is that a support, or are you still undecided? (You haven't boldened "supporting" and you have made it conditional, so it is hard to tell.) And is the image review a pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I didn't actually think I had to enbolden, but yeah, pass for both parts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski: Strictly, you don't, but it does make my job a lot easier. And you had written "supporting unless ...", so I was not entirely sure. Thanks for clarifying. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

[edit]

(As noted, I participated in the peer review.) I've made some copyedits and MoS fixes to double-check.

Hi there, David. Thanks a lot for participating!
  • You mention Summoner's rift in the image caption and in prose before you actually introduce it in the following subsection. I took a stab at explaining it was a game mode in the image caption, but you should either explain it in prose or just cut the mention of its name.
  • Good point; I wouldn't have considered that. Thanks for making that change.
  • @David Fuchs: I thought you'd already made this change, which is why the delay. I've dropped the name of the mode from the image! I'm not entirely sure I agree (from the lead: "In the game's main mode, Summoner's Rift, a team wins by pushing through to the enemy base and destroying their "nexus", a large structure located within it"), but a straightforward and uncontroversial hill that isn't one I feel like dying on! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side note: you don't get XP or gold from killing enemy champions at all, just minions and structures?
  • Yeah; this came up earlier. You do get it gold and (a small amount of) XP for killing champions, but I couldn't source it, unfortunately.
  • I didn't know this again. Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to go through "my" other articles and make those changes, too.
  • "League of Legends's patches made keeping pace with the developer's changes a core part of the game"—the emphasis on of seems a little weird and misplaced to me. I think it reads better without it.
  • Yeah; that's fair! I've made this change.
  • Since it's now 2021, do we have any good sources for an update to the champion count?
  • There was originally an update, but it was from Dot Esports—the only source we had to end up removing because of the source review (fair enough). I've just had a look around and I really can't find anything more recent. There are currently 153 champions (soon to be 154)—they add about five or six a year. Open to any advice, but came up short so far.
  • Yeah—that's why the WaPo source is used there. If you look on the Talk page, we were getting a lot of requests to update the number, so we just made it more general. I can't find anything that even mentions the game has over 150 champions that is an unimpeachable source, though. I've scrolled for a while now. If I do see something, I'll add it, though.
    • I've done so, but in the future you may want to insert non-breaking spaces for stuff like dollar figures so they are presented as full figures without line breaks.
  • This one has ben mentioned to me, but thanks for pressing me to actually look up how it works.
  • Is there a reason for the use of italics at the ends of ref tags or punctuation, for example .?
  • No! This is weird. Fixed now, but... surprising! Thanks for flagging that up; that's a strange one.
  • Also, in some places you've dropped the s after an apostrophe, as in League of Legends' player base, while in others you have the s, as in Riot Games's founders. Either is fine, you just need to make it consistent.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David Fuchs: Fixed these. Do I need to go through and change the titles in the sources? There's about 70 of those so I'll wait till I get your feedback before I make this one. All done otherwise. Thanks for the feedback so far. Means a lot that you took the time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given a strict reading of the MOS, I suppose they should? Along with normalizing quotes to straight versus curly or `. It's not something I've ever been bothered with versus worrying about uniformity in the body text where it's most important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Are you sure about this? The content of this page seems a little light, considering it's concerning the most popular game in the world. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any aspects of the game it's neglecting, and it appears a representative slice of the topic. A lot of the additional coverage you could fill an article with would be largely irrelevant to a general-purpose entry (changelogs and balance patches aren't particularly interesting or important.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it gives a good summary of the game for the casual reader. If someone wants more detail, maybe they to start playing the game, they can go to the League of Legends fandom wiki or something like that. More important to the reader than detailed gameplay is reception, criticism, history, impact on culture, etc. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/League_of_Legends/archive1&oldid=1006350410"